Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Somnath Virbhadrayya Vijapure, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Solapur for the murder of Somshekhar Jawalkoti under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 30 January 2013, the accused alighted from a bus and attacked the deceased with an axe following a dispute over a boundary. The informant (PW-1) and Raghuveer (PW-2) claimed to have witnessed the incident. However, the High Court found material inconsistencies in their testimonies, particularly regarding the time of the incident and their presence at the scene. The court noted that the evidence was not reliable and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimony regarding time of incident and presence at scene - Held that when evidence is inconsistent and doubtful, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Inconsistencies in witness testimony
- Benefit of doubt
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 374 CrPC
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (10) 39
Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2014
Prasanna B. Varale, V. G. Bisht
Ms. Payoshi Roy i/b. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the Appellant, Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent -State
Somnath Virbhadrayya Vijapure
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and acquitted under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable given inconsistencies in prosecution evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was inconsistent and unreliable.
Respondent-State supported the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
When prosecution evidence is inconsistent and doubtful, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 169 of 2013 dated 15th March, 2014.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Solapur on 15 March 2014. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, which reserved judgment on 15 September 2020 and pronounced on 13 October 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 504, 506
